CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INIDA vs R.SATIADOSS

THESE two appeals arise out of one common order passed by the District Forum, Chengleput. One appeal is by the opposite parties and the other by the complainant. Therefore, both the appeals can be disposed of by one order here.

THE case of the complainant, is that on 7.10.94 he paid to his account at the State Bank of India, West Tambaram, Madras, a sum of Rs. 600/- to be telegraphically transferred to his son''s account at the Tuljapur Branch of the State Bank of India. He paid a sum of Rs. 35/- as necessary charges. But his son did not get this amount in his account at the Tuljapur Branch of the State Bank of India, of which the 2nd opposite party is the Manager. He therefore suffered for want of money and resorted to borrow and travelled from Tuljapur to Tambaram with great difficulty. Further, the complainant and other family members also suffered from tension and agony. On these grounds, the complaint has been filed for compensation. The 1st opposite party contended that the message of transfer was sent though telegram in coded words on 7.10.94 to Tuljapur Branch, but on 8.10.94 they sent back a message by telegram reporting that the secret signal was defective, but that message has not reached the 1st opposite party. Later it was found that the message did not reach Tambaram, Madras and it was due to the fault on the part of the Telegraph Department. Subsequently credit has been given in the complainant''s son''s account at Tuljapur. Therefore, the delay that occurred in transferring the money was due to the default of the Telegraph Department and not the 1st opposite party.

The 2nd opposite party in its written version contended that a telegram was received on 8.10.94 from the 1st opposite party but in the code words the secret signal was defective and it therefore sent a message to the 1st opposite party for clarification, but there was delay in the 1st opposite party receiving that message, and it was due to the default to the Telegraph Department. Subsequently on getting confirmation letter from the 1st opposite party, credit in the account of the complainant''s son was given on 14.10.94.

THE District Forum, on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that it was due to the fault of the opposite parties the complainant''s son could not get the money and on account of it he suffered a lot and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation. It granted a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties within one month failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It also awarded costs of Rs. 600/-. Against this order, the opposite parties have filed appeal in AP No. 1518/95 contending that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained because it is against the evidence and probabilities of the case. THE complainant has filed an appeal in AP No. 159/96 contending that the award of compensation granted by the District Forum is low and it must be enhanced. The first point that has to be decided is, whether the finding of the District Forum that due to the fault of the opposite parties the delay in the money reaching the complainant''s son has occurred, is not correct ?

AFTER hearing the Counsel for both sides and on going thorough the evidence adduced, we find that the said finding of the District Forum is not correct. It is not the case of the complainant that the 1st opposite party has not sent the message to the 2nd opposite party. Ex. B-1 is a message sent by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party regarding the transaction in question and that is dated 8.10.94. Ex. B-3 is a message sent by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party which is also regarding the same transaction and of the same date as Ex. B-l with the writing, "Check signal appears incorrect. Please repeat with variable used". This document would clearly show that the 1st opposite party has sent a telegraphic message to the 2nd opposite party but there had been some defect in the message which the 2nd opposite party wanted to clarify with the 1st opposite party. According to the 1st opposite party this message has not reached it because of the fault of the Telegraph Department. Ex. B-2 is the letter written by the 2nd opposite party to the Telegraph Office, Tuljapur dated 22.3.93 stating that they had sent a telegram on 8.10.94 to the 1st opposite party and that had not reached the destination and enquiring as to what had happened to the telegram. From these letters it appears there had been some defect in the code words as contended by the opposite parties. In these circumstances, we have to consider whether the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. Ex. B-5 is the copy of the Telegraphic Transfer Application relating to the transaction in question. This shows that the parties have agreed to certain conditions that reads as follows : "I/We request you to make the above payment by wire entirely at my/our risk and on my/our responsibility and on the distinct understanding that no liability whatsoever is to attach to the Bank for any loss, injury or damage arising or resulting from delay in transmission, delivery or non/- delivery of the telegraphic message or for any mistake, omission or error in the transmission or delivery thereof or in deciphering the message from any cause whatsoever or from the misinterpretation when received."

From this it is clear that the Bank should not be held liable for any loss, injury or damage arising or regarding any delay in transmission. The grievance of the complainant is that there has been delay in transmission. As we have seen above, the amount has been paid into the account of the complainant''s son on 14.10.94. So it is the clear case of delay in transmission, whatever may be the reason therefor. That being the case, as per the condition aforesaid in the Telegraphic Transfer Application, the opposite parties cannot be held liable. In this view of the matter, we do not agree with the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the result, therefore, the award passed against the opposite parties cannot be sustained and hence. A.P. No. 1518/95 filed by the opposite parties is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. Consequently, A.P. No. 156/96 filed by the complainant is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both these appeals. A.P. No. 1518/95 allowed. A.P. No. 159/96 dismissed.